- This topic has 960 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM #681245March 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM #680105
NotCranky
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Rustico]This was where I drew the conclusion that we do not agree,ZK. “If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.”
I asked you for a link. You said you would get back with one. Maybe I missed it. I have read studies that report those claims and they qualify as the type of work I am criticizing. I did not get the idea that we are agreeing,mostly because of the issue of specificity I thought you were advancing. If you were not claiming genes specific to Alcoholism, Bulimia and Anorexia,that specifically debilitates those people in those ways and not others, than we are closer to agreement.[/quote]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/01.ALC.0000108645.54345.98/pdf
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/16/2421.full
This one has more links at the bottom:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a…These are studies that point to specific genes that increase one’s predisposition to alcoholism.
But genes specific to alcoholism are irrelevant to my main argument, which is that alcoholism has a strong genetic component. Whether the constellation of genes for alcoholism (or the constellations for anorexia or bulimia) also increase one’s predisposition for other problems is irrelevant for my argument. If the genes that make it more likely that you’ll have alcoholism also make it more likely that you’ll have some other problem, that doesn’t change the fact that those genes predispose you to alcoholism.
Even if having certain personality traits (e.g. social inhibition, impulse control problems) have a genetic component, and those traits make it more likely you’ll have alcoholism, then that constitutes a genetic component for alcoholism. The genes don’t by any means have to be specific to alcoholism and not affect anything else.[/quote]
I am sticking with the idea that this propensity is part of the human condition,universally. Perhaps that is agreeing to disagree?
March 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM #680159Participant[quote=zk][quote=Rustico]This was where I drew the conclusion that we do not agree,ZK. “If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.”
I asked you for a link. You said you would get back with one. Maybe I missed it. I have read studies that report those claims and they qualify as the type of work I am criticizing. I did not get the idea that we are agreeing,mostly because of the issue of specificity I thought you were advancing. If you were not claiming genes specific to Alcoholism, Bulimia and Anorexia,that specifically debilitates those people in those ways and not others, than we are closer to agreement.[/quote]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/01.ALC.0000108645.54345.98/pdf
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/16/2421.full
This one has more links at the bottom:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a…These are studies that point to specific genes that increase one’s predisposition to alcoholism.
But genes specific to alcoholism are irrelevant to my main argument, which is that alcoholism has a strong genetic component. Whether the constellation of genes for alcoholism (or the constellations for anorexia or bulimia) also increase one’s predisposition for other problems is irrelevant for my argument. If the genes that make it more likely that you’ll have alcoholism also make it more likely that you’ll have some other problem, that doesn’t change the fact that those genes predispose you to alcoholism.
Even if having certain personality traits (e.g. social inhibition, impulse control problems) have a genetic component, and those traits make it more likely you’ll have alcoholism, then that constitutes a genetic component for alcoholism. The genes don’t by any means have to be specific to alcoholism and not affect anything else.[/quote]
I am sticking with the idea that this propensity is part of the human condition,universally. Perhaps that is agreeing to disagree?
March 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM #680773Participant[quote=zk][quote=Rustico]This was where I drew the conclusion that we do not agree,ZK. “If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.”
I asked you for a link. You said you would get back with one. Maybe I missed it. I have read studies that report those claims and they qualify as the type of work I am criticizing. I did not get the idea that we are agreeing,mostly because of the issue of specificity I thought you were advancing. If you were not claiming genes specific to Alcoholism, Bulimia and Anorexia,that specifically debilitates those people in those ways and not others, than we are closer to agreement.[/quote]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/01.ALC.0000108645.54345.98/pdf
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/16/2421.full
This one has more links at the bottom:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a…These are studies that point to specific genes that increase one’s predisposition to alcoholism.
But genes specific to alcoholism are irrelevant to my main argument, which is that alcoholism has a strong genetic component. Whether the constellation of genes for alcoholism (or the constellations for anorexia or bulimia) also increase one’s predisposition for other problems is irrelevant for my argument. If the genes that make it more likely that you’ll have alcoholism also make it more likely that you’ll have some other problem, that doesn’t change the fact that those genes predispose you to alcoholism.
Even if having certain personality traits (e.g. social inhibition, impulse control problems) have a genetic component, and those traits make it more likely you’ll have alcoholism, then that constitutes a genetic component for alcoholism. The genes don’t by any means have to be specific to alcoholism and not affect anything else.[/quote]
I am sticking with the idea that this propensity is part of the human condition,universally. Perhaps that is agreeing to disagree?
March 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM #680912Participant[quote=zk][quote=Rustico]This was where I drew the conclusion that we do not agree,ZK. “If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.”
I asked you for a link. You said you would get back with one. Maybe I missed it. I have read studies that report those claims and they qualify as the type of work I am criticizing. I did not get the idea that we are agreeing,mostly because of the issue of specificity I thought you were advancing. If you were not claiming genes specific to Alcoholism, Bulimia and Anorexia,that specifically debilitates those people in those ways and not others, than we are closer to agreement.[/quote]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/01.ALC.0000108645.54345.98/pdf
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/16/2421.full
This one has more links at the bottom:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a…These are studies that point to specific genes that increase one’s predisposition to alcoholism.
But genes specific to alcoholism are irrelevant to my main argument, which is that alcoholism has a strong genetic component. Whether the constellation of genes for alcoholism (or the constellations for anorexia or bulimia) also increase one’s predisposition for other problems is irrelevant for my argument. If the genes that make it more likely that you’ll have alcoholism also make it more likely that you’ll have some other problem, that doesn’t change the fact that those genes predispose you to alcoholism.
Even if having certain personality traits (e.g. social inhibition, impulse control problems) have a genetic component, and those traits make it more likely you’ll have alcoholism, then that constitutes a genetic component for alcoholism. The genes don’t by any means have to be specific to alcoholism and not affect anything else.[/quote]
I am sticking with the idea that this propensity is part of the human condition,universally. Perhaps that is agreeing to disagree?
March 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM #681265Participant[quote=zk][quote=Rustico]This was where I drew the conclusion that we do not agree,ZK. “If your assertion was that there is no genetic component to alcoholism, then I strongly disagree. In fact, studies have shown not only that there is likely a genetic component, but they have shown which genes contribute.”
I asked you for a link. You said you would get back with one. Maybe I missed it. I have read studies that report those claims and they qualify as the type of work I am criticizing. I did not get the idea that we are agreeing,mostly because of the issue of specificity I thought you were advancing. If you were not claiming genes specific to Alcoholism, Bulimia and Anorexia,that specifically debilitates those people in those ways and not others, than we are closer to agreement.[/quote]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/01.ALC.0000108645.54345.98/pdf
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/16/2421.full
This one has more links at the bottom:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a…These are studies that point to specific genes that increase one’s predisposition to alcoholism.
But genes specific to alcoholism are irrelevant to my main argument, which is that alcoholism has a strong genetic component. Whether the constellation of genes for alcoholism (or the constellations for anorexia or bulimia) also increase one’s predisposition for other problems is irrelevant for my argument. If the genes that make it more likely that you’ll have alcoholism also make it more likely that you’ll have some other problem, that doesn’t change the fact that those genes predispose you to alcoholism.
Even if having certain personality traits (e.g. social inhibition, impulse control problems) have a genetic component, and those traits make it more likely you’ll have alcoholism, then that constitutes a genetic component for alcoholism. The genes don’t by any means have to be specific to alcoholism and not affect anything else.[/quote]
I am sticking with the idea that this propensity is part of the human condition,universally. Perhaps that is agreeing to disagree?
March 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM #680160jpinpb
Participant[quote=zk]Sure, except I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s strictly genetic. The other side of the coin is that if we say there’s no genetic component, we’re also doing a disservice. [/quote]
Yes. Same here. I’m not saying it is soley the gene that’s the problem. But I am saying it compounds the situation. It is just one more thing an alcoholic needs to contend w/rather than someone else who has this liver enzyme that metabolizes it. And that’s also why I say it is a disease.
If I remember right, everyone is susceptible to cancer; everyone does have cancer and how the body deals w/it dictates whether you will fall prey to the illness.
You wouldn’t go up to a cancer patient and say, “I have cancer and I’m not sick, so why are you?”
Will power plays a part in any addiction and certainly some people have developed a stronger will power than others. But when you add the genetic predisposition factor, it’s just one more thing. I’m not trying to make excuses or justify it. I’m explaining the difficulty. That doesn’t mean alcoholics are free and clear to indulge in their sickness. There are plenty of recovering alcoholics who don’t drink. They have found a way around their impediment.
March 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM #680214Participant[quote=zk]Sure, except I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s strictly genetic. The other side of the coin is that if we say there’s no genetic component, we’re also doing a disservice. [/quote]
Yes. Same here. I’m not saying it is soley the gene that’s the problem. But I am saying it compounds the situation. It is just one more thing an alcoholic needs to contend w/rather than someone else who has this liver enzyme that metabolizes it. And that’s also why I say it is a disease.
If I remember right, everyone is susceptible to cancer; everyone does have cancer and how the body deals w/it dictates whether you will fall prey to the illness.
You wouldn’t go up to a cancer patient and say, “I have cancer and I’m not sick, so why are you?”
Will power plays a part in any addiction and certainly some people have developed a stronger will power than others. But when you add the genetic predisposition factor, it’s just one more thing. I’m not trying to make excuses or justify it. I’m explaining the difficulty. That doesn’t mean alcoholics are free and clear to indulge in their sickness. There are plenty of recovering alcoholics who don’t drink. They have found a way around their impediment.
March 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM #680828Participant[quote=zk]Sure, except I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s strictly genetic. The other side of the coin is that if we say there’s no genetic component, we’re also doing a disservice. [/quote]
Yes. Same here. I’m not saying it is soley the gene that’s the problem. But I am saying it compounds the situation. It is just one more thing an alcoholic needs to contend w/rather than someone else who has this liver enzyme that metabolizes it. And that’s also why I say it is a disease.
If I remember right, everyone is susceptible to cancer; everyone does have cancer and how the body deals w/it dictates whether you will fall prey to the illness.
You wouldn’t go up to a cancer patient and say, “I have cancer and I’m not sick, so why are you?”
Will power plays a part in any addiction and certainly some people have developed a stronger will power than others. But when you add the genetic predisposition factor, it’s just one more thing. I’m not trying to make excuses or justify it. I’m explaining the difficulty. That doesn’t mean alcoholics are free and clear to indulge in their sickness. There are plenty of recovering alcoholics who don’t drink. They have found a way around their impediment.
March 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM #680967Participant[quote=zk]Sure, except I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s strictly genetic. The other side of the coin is that if we say there’s no genetic component, we’re also doing a disservice. [/quote]
Yes. Same here. I’m not saying it is soley the gene that’s the problem. But I am saying it compounds the situation. It is just one more thing an alcoholic needs to contend w/rather than someone else who has this liver enzyme that metabolizes it. And that’s also why I say it is a disease.
If I remember right, everyone is susceptible to cancer; everyone does have cancer and how the body deals w/it dictates whether you will fall prey to the illness.
You wouldn’t go up to a cancer patient and say, “I have cancer and I’m not sick, so why are you?”
Will power plays a part in any addiction and certainly some people have developed a stronger will power than others. But when you add the genetic predisposition factor, it’s just one more thing. I’m not trying to make excuses or justify it. I’m explaining the difficulty. That doesn’t mean alcoholics are free and clear to indulge in their sickness. There are plenty of recovering alcoholics who don’t drink. They have found a way around their impediment.
March 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM #681318Participant[quote=zk]Sure, except I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s strictly genetic. The other side of the coin is that if we say there’s no genetic component, we’re also doing a disservice. [/quote]
Yes. Same here. I’m not saying it is soley the gene that’s the problem. But I am saying it compounds the situation. It is just one more thing an alcoholic needs to contend w/rather than someone else who has this liver enzyme that metabolizes it. And that’s also why I say it is a disease.
If I remember right, everyone is susceptible to cancer; everyone does have cancer and how the body deals w/it dictates whether you will fall prey to the illness.
You wouldn’t go up to a cancer patient and say, “I have cancer and I’m not sick, so why are you?”
Will power plays a part in any addiction and certainly some people have developed a stronger will power than others. But when you add the genetic predisposition factor, it’s just one more thing. I’m not trying to make excuses or justify it. I’m explaining the difficulty. That doesn’t mean alcoholics are free and clear to indulge in their sickness. There are plenty of recovering alcoholics who don’t drink. They have found a way around their impediment.
March 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM #680165briansd1
Guest[quote=walterwhite]My backstory is my dr. Wife and I disagreed for over a decade on whether my drinking every single night at dinner was good or bad for health. My position was that someday science would prove what is obvious to me. Eventually studies showed alcohol drinking correlates w health. I think wine is best because it’s fruit. Beer is ok but I’d rather drink hard alcohol before beer. But I haven’t researched it. I just scan her incoming medical journals for articles and irritantingly wave them in triumph. Not really research. Now she just says I’m at risk if I go over two drinks per night, and she’s probably right but I try to keep it down to 3. Usually with success. I’m pretty sure it’s nervousness that will Jill mr so ghe risk of that extra drink is worth it[/quote]
After doing more reading, it seems like up 3 glasses of wine per day (no beer) is best for you. Or maybe 2 glasses of wine with an aperitif and a digestif.
The key is not to get wasted but to enjoy the wine.
March 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM #680219Guest[quote=walterwhite]My backstory is my dr. Wife and I disagreed for over a decade on whether my drinking every single night at dinner was good or bad for health. My position was that someday science would prove what is obvious to me. Eventually studies showed alcohol drinking correlates w health. I think wine is best because it’s fruit. Beer is ok but I’d rather drink hard alcohol before beer. But I haven’t researched it. I just scan her incoming medical journals for articles and irritantingly wave them in triumph. Not really research. Now she just says I’m at risk if I go over two drinks per night, and she’s probably right but I try to keep it down to 3. Usually with success. I’m pretty sure it’s nervousness that will Jill mr so ghe risk of that extra drink is worth it[/quote]
After doing more reading, it seems like up 3 glasses of wine per day (no beer) is best for you. Or maybe 2 glasses of wine with an aperitif and a digestif.
The key is not to get wasted but to enjoy the wine.
March 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM #680833Guest[quote=walterwhite]My backstory is my dr. Wife and I disagreed for over a decade on whether my drinking every single night at dinner was good or bad for health. My position was that someday science would prove what is obvious to me. Eventually studies showed alcohol drinking correlates w health. I think wine is best because it’s fruit. Beer is ok but I’d rather drink hard alcohol before beer. But I haven’t researched it. I just scan her incoming medical journals for articles and irritantingly wave them in triumph. Not really research. Now she just says I’m at risk if I go over two drinks per night, and she’s probably right but I try to keep it down to 3. Usually with success. I’m pretty sure it’s nervousness that will Jill mr so ghe risk of that extra drink is worth it[/quote]
After doing more reading, it seems like up 3 glasses of wine per day (no beer) is best for you. Or maybe 2 glasses of wine with an aperitif and a digestif.
The key is not to get wasted but to enjoy the wine.
March 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM #680972Guest[quote=walterwhite]My backstory is my dr. Wife and I disagreed for over a decade on whether my drinking every single night at dinner was good or bad for health. My position was that someday science would prove what is obvious to me. Eventually studies showed alcohol drinking correlates w health. I think wine is best because it’s fruit. Beer is ok but I’d rather drink hard alcohol before beer. But I haven’t researched it. I just scan her incoming medical journals for articles and irritantingly wave them in triumph. Not really research. Now she just says I’m at risk if I go over two drinks per night, and she’s probably right but I try to keep it down to 3. Usually with success. I’m pretty sure it’s nervousness that will Jill mr so ghe risk of that extra drink is worth it[/quote]
After doing more reading, it seems like up 3 glasses of wine per day (no beer) is best for you. Or maybe 2 glasses of wine with an aperitif and a digestif.
The key is not to get wasted but to enjoy the wine.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.